Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Guns & Ammo Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #691  
Old 10-11-2020, 04:29 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Another vid from Ian Runkle, this one on some definitions about firearms storage at home, which was finally ruled on by the SCOC;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM0NAFTr5Ac
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #692  
Old 10-12-2020, 03:35 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Turns out the Doctors may have a guest during their Day of Action from the USA, they are advertising that Shannon Watts, from Moms Demand Action, a Bloomberg sponsored group will be speaking ( vid conf most probably) in a broadcast they are making this Tues nite.


A little background on Watts, before she was Watts;

https://onlygunsandmoney.com/2019/04...uk9z0BZuhsLXvk
Attached Images
File Type: jpg doctors.jpg (96.4 KB, 28 views)
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #693  
Old 10-14-2020, 01:07 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Dennis Young is up and at 'em again, this time , cabinet documents from meetings about C68, a bit of history;

https://dennisryoung.ca/2020/10/13/2...I2NYmGAzowqo1I
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #694  
Old 10-18-2020, 12:27 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

This sounds about par for the course these days, and they want more gun laws?

https://www.iheartradio.ca/am800/new...9SuDX_SadwCiMw
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #695  
Old 11-07-2020, 07:20 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Been some stuff going around this week on Blair talking about "evergreen laws", which essentially means he wants the ability to ban any gun at any time, without notice, by just adding it to the May 1st OIC list. Nothing really new, other than he has gone public with it at the SECU meetings;

“Blair told the committee the government needed an “evergreen process” to keep Canadians safe “because we know that the gun industry is agile and adept at bringing forward new models and variants in order to try to get around the rules.””

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...0mdjmZck61maL0
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #696  
Old 11-12-2020, 05:37 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

CCFR and a debate with Doctors spokesperson on gun legislation;

https://albertaviews.ca/should-we-ba...ktCgJ5IXDq9U5c
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #697  
Old 11-12-2020, 05:50 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

CCFR lawyer's opinion on Toronto shooting;


8h ·
An incompetent government thinks that taking firearms from law-abiding sport shooters and hunters will somehow change the behaviour of gangster criminal thugs. That's the stupidest thing I've heard of in a very long time.
I mean it literally when I say that this level of incompetence enrages me. Not because the corrupt and incompetent Liberals are taking some of my guns, though that is a serious source of irritation to me, but because of this, and this is important: by pretending that disarming me will have some effect on gang violence, and by telling Canadians that it will (which is a lie), the Liberals are pulling significant resources out of each of the legislative branch of government, the law enforcement side of government, and the public Treasury, and by doing so those resources are no longer available for actually dealing with actual gang violence.
Meanwhile, these lies provide "political cover" to the Liberals for not actually doing anything about the gang violence that precipitates the ongoing murders of the youth of our nation, and the innocent bystanders who are cut down as collateral damage to that uncontrolled gang violence.
All those resources will be squandered for nothing.
None of it will work.
And as a result of Liberal incompetence and corruption, children will continue to die on the streets of Toronto, be it on Jane and Finch or some other area.
These children will continue to die, and the blood will be dripping from the incompetent, ineffective hands of the Liberals.

And an article written in the Star today;

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/202...2dzDVQZR6e6dzk

CBC coverage;

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...HSBiWRuT9BsQ1I

National Telegraph coverage;

https://thenationaltelegraph.com/opi...PW-1WfStWNbjkY
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #698  
Old 11-19-2020, 08:39 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Some news today from the CCFR and other sources. Mike Loberg has apparently filed against or tried to have Murray Smith DQ'd as an expert witness, if I get ambitious I'll convert his PDF to a shareable Google doc.
This article outlines what is happening at the moment;

https://ipolitics.ca/2020/11/19/affi...4aTdUnMfV1YpKs
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #699  
Old 11-20-2020, 03:34 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Ouch, some made a big booboo, and there is always someone watching;

Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Alberta
3d ·
On Oct. 29, 2020, Beaverlodge RCMP received information from the United States’ Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regarding concerning online content of a criminal nature that was believed to have been posted by a resident of the Beaverlodge area.
Beaverlodge RCMP completed an investigation that resulted in obtaining a search warrant for a residence in Beaverlodge. On Nov. 7, 2020, Beaverlodge RCMP, completed a search of a residence located in Beaverlodge and this search resulted in the seizure of three firearms.
A 38-year-old male of Beaverlodge, Alta. is charged with:
· Possession of a firearm without a license (x3)
· Storage of a firearm in a careless manner (x3)
Following a judicial hearing, the man was released on cash bail with conditions to attend Grande Prairie Provincial Court on Nov. 30, 2020.
“This investigation is an example of how international agencies successfully work together to ensure the safety of our communities,” said Sgt. Ash Browne, Detachment Commander of Beaverlodge RCMP. “Beaverlodge RCMP would like to remind residents that it’s important to inform us of any social media posts you feel could endanger the lives of their fellow citizens.”
rcmp-grc.ca/81265
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #700  
Old 11-20-2020, 04:04 PM
Scott N's Avatar
Scott N Scott N is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,506
Default

yup, people can be stupid about posting self-incriminating videos on YouTube and other social media sites.
Reply With Quote
  #701  
Old 11-23-2020, 01:00 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

So, National Police Federation (RCMP) has come out against the OIC's, they say money can be better spent without tying up scarce assets on useless endeavours;

https://npfcontent.ca/wp-content/upl...VMdhwDHUTZVXlI
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #702  
Old 11-26-2020, 03:01 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Commissioner of Firearms 2019 report has been published, mostly useless propaganda;

https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firear...irearms-report
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #703  
Old 11-27-2020, 09:53 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Interesting read, ATRS pulled out of the case they were in and are suing the CFO and RCMP on their own, claiming malfeasance, wonder how that will fly?

https://ipolitics.ca/2020/11/27/albe...9PivYjzs0RSc0c
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #704  
Old 11-27-2020, 10:37 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

CCFR's injunction filing;

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...A9mChmjlk/edit
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA

Last edited by 32-40win; 11-27-2020 at 10:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #705  
Old 11-28-2020, 11:54 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Sounds like Blair wants to use private contractors to to the "buyback". A 78,000,000.00 consultant fee ? This oughta be a chitshow, not that it isn't already.

https://thegunblog.ca/2020/11/27/bil...kXpDSEeeS90kPY
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #706  
Old 11-28-2020, 12:09 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is online now
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 32-40win View Post
Sounds like Blair wants to use private contractors to to the "buyback". A 78,000,000.00 consultant fee ? This oughta be a chitshow, not that it isn't already.

https://thegunblog.ca/2020/11/27/bil...kXpDSEeeS90kPY
Yeah, I saw that $78M consulting contract, and the first thing I wondered was which Liberal friend/spouse/former MP got that contract.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #707  
Old 11-30-2020, 05:58 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Some good news for those worried about PAL renewals;

Federal Bill C-20 {An Act respecting further COVID-19 measures} includes a clause that is welcome news to a few of us.
Section 64 of The Firearms Act is impacted in that if your Firearms Licence expires anytime between September 23rd, 2020 and December 30th, 2020 -- it shall remain entirely valid until December 31st, 2020 at which time you will then fall under the codified Six-Month Grace Period, brought about by Bill C-42.
What does this mean? It means that while your PAL card may indicate expired, it's entirely valid. You can purchase firearms and ammunition, you can hunt, and take your guns to the range.
If you are currently within the codified Six-Month Grace Period, and it expires between September 23rd, 2020 and December 30th, then your Grace Period has also been extended as above.
If checked, the CFP system will recognize your PAL as being valid during this period.
As a reminder, we strongly encourage expiring PAL holders to renew at least EIGHT-NINE MONTHS prior to expiry, and to do so ONLINE.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #708  
Old 11-30-2020, 07:43 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Wouldn't the Libs like to get away with this over here, NZ gov't suppresses the evidence on the Christchurch shooting for 30 yrs. I expect they don't want to offend anyone or implicate officials after all;

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-z...f=ves-nextauto
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #709  
Old 11-30-2020, 10:24 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

This does not sound good at all, is it arbitrary, because of the lawsuit, ATRS ordered to essentially to almost shut down their business, Guess we will see what goes on here, this is getting a bit ugly;

https://thegunblog.ca/2020/11/30/alb...QYPQKzJqCXUhqg
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #710  
Old 11-30-2020, 11:59 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Ian Runkle's analysis of the S74 Stark decison today. Well worth a watch along with his other S74 vids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zPBqh71dmc
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #711  
Old 12-01-2020, 09:46 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

CCFR filed their main injunction papers against the OIC and FRT changes on the 27th, it is 2700+ pages, it is on their website, along with the one to DQ Murray Smith;

https://firearmrights.ca/en/ccfr-fil...TmSHSGjVCSIa6s
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #712  
Old 12-04-2020, 01:50 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Giltaca, Loberg and Langmann on the "Justice" program, hadn't even heard of the site alone the program til now;

https://thenewsforum.ca/?fbclid=IwAR...lMLxZOShK7kM6w
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #713  
Old 12-08-2020, 05:27 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Apparently this is the company they have hired to administer the buyback, this is probably a typically mind boggling Liberal scam to line someone's pocket and will provide a denial factor for them to be able to say they didn't hire the person in charge and have no fault on their part when the program implodes.

https://www.altisprofessional.com/?f...HZ52N_PyPguM8M
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #714  
Old 12-09-2020, 02:47 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Thought the story told about Altis seemed weird, they have just stated they were contracted to provide employees for Public Safety. So, either Billy just needs more people or he has decided to create a new entity to run the buyback within Public Safety.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Altis.jpg (48.4 KB, 10 views)
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #715  
Old 12-09-2020, 05:00 AM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is online now
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,210
Default

Altis received so much harsh criticism and blowback from the Firearms community that they have now withdrawn from the contract altogether. There is an extensive thread on CGN about it.

https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...iscation/page7
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #716  
Old 12-16-2020, 08:30 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Sure some of the responses to Altis probably didn't help the cause a lot, turned out they were just consulting on hiring.

Anyway, Alberta bill 211 is in first reading, essentially establishes provincial jurisdiction over what they can have jurisdiction on, regarding firearms in the province. There is a PDF link in this page;

http://www2.assembly.ab.ca/net/index...l=30&session=2
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #717  
Old 12-30-2020, 10:26 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

So, the feds have now contracted with IBM to develop their program for the buyback, Compensation Model and Program Design Options for a Potential Buyback Program for Recently Prohibited Firearms (7247366), as it is known to them, here goes another few million for that, I would expect it will come along after an election now, seems like that will happen sooner than later this year judging by the rumour mills.

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement...3GXB0Gp7-YmxVk
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #718  
Old 01-07-2021, 01:05 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

From Mike Loberg, CCFR counsel ;

Re: s. 74 Alberta Update
Further to the Stark line of cases, the Attorney General of Canada ("AGC") is appealing Judge Fradsham's decisions in this line of cases (all of them).

Recall that Fradsham J. found that:

(a) The reg certs survived the OIC and were not "nullified" as the Registrar claimed they were;
(b) The Provincial Court has jurisdiction to hear the s. 74 applications;
(c) The Registrar's letters were revocations (and by implication reviewable ones); and
(d) The s. 74 applications are not an abuse of process.

On April 30, 2021 the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta will hear this Application by the AGC, where the AGC is asking the Court to "quash" Judge Fradsham's decision (reverse it).
The AGC wants opposite Orders that:
(a) The reg certs did not survived the OIC (and by implication must have been nullified);
(b) The Provincial Court has no jurisdiction to hear the s. 74 applications;
(c) The Registrar's letters were not revocations (and therefore are not reviewable);
(d) The s. 74 application is therefore an abuse of process; and
(e) Judge Fradsham's decisions must be declared to be of no force or effect.

Attached is a Notice of Appeal from one of the cases the AGC launched. I have removed the name because service on some of the Respondents is in issue, so we're not admitting who we got this from or whose it is, so we are not admitting service. It is not Stark.
My money is on Fradsham being upheld. His logic and process was flawless and precise (as he always is).
Onward!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I get some time I'll try converting his PDF of the filing and post that as well. Haven't come across a simple process for doing that yet, that works in this forum. Somebody else knows how? , have at er.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #719  
Old 01-17-2021, 02:35 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Some thoughts on the S74 hearings from Mike Loberg from the CCFR;

CCFR Answers
18h ·
Re: Section 74 Reference Hearings for “Nullified” Registration Certificates – Can we win them?
(Revision Date: 16 January 2021)
A section 74 Firearms Act reference hearing is how a Canadian challenges a decision they don’t agree with that was made by a Chief Firearms Officer (“CFO”) or the Registrar of Firearms (“Registrar”).
In the present case we’re talking about the July 20, 2020 letters the Registrar sent to gun owners affected by the Order in Council that created the ban (“OIC”), saying our registration certificates for the affected guns were “nullified”.
Just to get this out of the way, there is nothing in any act or regulation that “nullifies” a registration certificate. There are some provisions which automatically revoke certificates, but none of them apply to our facts. Importantly though, the fact that these provision exist tell us that Parliament thought that where they wanted automatic revocation, a specific statutory section was required to make it happen.
So can a reference hearing “win” on our facts?
It’s hard to envisage what a win could look like in a reference hearing in our present reality, at least yet. Let’s talk about this.
First, let’s remember that there are 2 decisions here:
1. The decision to make the Order in Council that banned our guns; and
2. The decision by the Registrar to revoke our registration certificates.
The first decision is being challenged by CCFR v Canada in Federal Court as a judicial review. The second decision is being challenged by some gun owners in these s. 74 reference hearings. It is critical to remember that these are different decisions, by different decision makers. An attack on one does not attack the other.
The Law
First, let’s pull the sections and the definitions from the Firearms Act:
71 (1) The Registrar
(a) may revoke a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm for any good and sufficient reason; and
(b) shall revoke a registration certificate for a firearm held by an individual where the Registrar is informed by a chief firearms officer under section 67 that the firearm is not being used for a purpose described in section 28. (2) A notice given under subsection (1) must include reasons for the decision disclosing the nature of the information relied on for the decision and must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81.
72 (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), if a chief firearms officer decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a licence or authorization to transport or the Registrar decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import, the chief firearms officer or Registrar shall give notice of the decision in the prescribed form to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate or authorization.
74 (1) Subject to subsection (2), where
(a) a chief firearms officer or the Registrar refuses to issue or revokes a licence, registration certificate, authorization to transport, authorization to export or authorization to import,
(b) a chief firearms officer decides under section 67 that a firearm possessed by an individual who holds a licence is not being used for a purpose described in section 28, or
(c) a provincial minister refuses to approve or revokes the approval of a shooting club or shooting range for the purposes of this Act,
the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate, authorization or approval may refer the matter to a provincial court judge in the territorial division in which the applicant or holder resides.
(2) An applicant or holder may only refer a matter to a provincial court judge under subsection (1) within thirty days after receiving notice of the decision of the chief firearms officer, Registrar or provincial minister under section 29, 67 or 72 or within such further time as is allowed by a provincial court judge, whether before or after the expiration of those thirty days.
82 An individual to be known as the Registrar of Firearms shall be appointed or deployed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act.
Discussion
Next, let’s consider if a revocation really happened. Most of what follows was written back on July 22, 2020:
1. Did a revocation happen?
Black’s Law Dictionary tells us that “revoke” means “To annul or make void by recalling or taking back. To cancel, rescind, repeal, or reverse, as to revoke a license or will”.
“Revocation” means “the withdrawal or recall of some power, authority, or thing granted, or a destroying or making void of some will, deed, or offer that had been valid until revoked”.
By comparison, “nullification” is defined as “The state or condition of being void; without legal effect or status. Also, the act which produces such effect”.
The July 20, 2020 letter from the Registrar of Firearms tells us, and we quote, “… the previous registration certificates are automatically nullified and are therefore no longer valid…”.
Clearly under any interpretation of these words, the Registrar of Firearms is telling us that our registration certificates, which used to be valid, are no longer valid. Equally clearly, we did not surrender them, and the Order in Council said exactly nothing about them so as to “automatically nullify” them, or do anything of the sort.
Be all that as it may, this is a document from the Registrar of Firearms (read the last words on the page where it says “Registrar of Firearms”) telling you that you no longer have registration certificates for your previously-restricted, now-prohibited firearms.
2. Was this a “notice”?
Back to Black’s Law Dictionary, “Notice in its legal sense is information concerning a fact, actually communicated to a person by an authorized person, or actually derived by him from a proper source, and is regarded in law as “actual” when the person sought to be affected by it knows thereby of the existence of the particular fact in question”. Clearly the document from the Registrar of Firearms meets that requirement, but let’s look at the Firearms Act.
The Firearms Act specifies that only the Registrar of Firearms can revoke your registration certificates; see section 71(1) which reads “The Registrar (a) may revoke a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm for any good and sufficient reason…”.
The document in question is sent by the Registrar of Firearms, so that criteria is met.
3. Was this in a “prescribed form”?
Section 72 of the Firearms Act provides that “… if … the Registrar decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a registration certificate … the … Registrar shall give notice of the decision in the prescribed form to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate or authorization”.
Section 2(1) of the Firearms Act provides that “prescribed means (a) in the case of a form or the information to be included on a form, prescribed by the federal Minister, and (b) in any other case, prescribed by the regulations”.
Because this is a matter of a “form”, there is no published regulation. In short, if the Minister of Public Safety and the staff under the Minister of Public Safety decide that the “RCMP GRC 6554E (2020 – 06)” (the form under discussion) is the “form” for doing this action, which obviously it is, then this is the “prescribed form”. No specific regulation is required.
The suggestion that there is only one “form” by which the Registrar of Firearms can communicate information to us regarding a revocation is simply a mistake. They can use any form they wish, provided the Minister approves it.
4. Did the Registrar of Firearms comply with the Firearms Act?
Section 72(2) of the Firearms Act requires that “(2) A notice given under subsection (1) must include reasons for the decision disclosing the nature of the information relied on for the decision and must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81”.
There are two parts to this.
First, the reasons for the decision must be disclosed in the notice. The Registrar of Firearms tells us that “the previous registration certificates are automatically nullified” as a result of the prohibition. Again, and as we have said any number of times, the OIC prohibiting these firearms says no such thing. The OIC does not deal with registration certificates at all. This is simply an interpretation by the Registrar of Firearms which is unsupported by the OIC. Be that as it may, they are obligated to provide a reason, and they have.
Second, the notice must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81 of the Firearms Act, telling people about their rights to refer a revocation to a Provincial Court judge for review. In every instance that we are aware of, the notice from the Registrar of Firearms failed to include that information.
5. What is the consequence of this failure?
This is a question for a judge, however there are likely only two options: (a) due to the noncompliance with section 72(2) of the Firearms Act, the notice is ineffective; or, (b) the notice is effective, but the Registrar of Firearms is liable for the consequences of their failure to comply with the Firearms Act.
The format of the notice appears to have been built the way it was specifically to cause gun owners to believe that the OIC automatically revoked the registration certificates (which it didn’t), for the sole purpose of causing gun owners not to take advantage of their section 74 rights. The failure to provide a copy of sections 74 to 81 of the Firearms Act is consistent with this pretense.
In the end, you used to have a registration certificate. Now you don’t, says the Registrar of Firearms. The Registrar of Firearms just told you that with their form RCMP GRC 6554E (2020 – 06), and we have said throughout that this is a revocation.
The above was from July 22, 2020. Since then we’ve got the Stark decision out of Alberta that more or less agrees with all of the foregoing (Attorney-General for Canada v Stark, 2020 ABPC 230).
Stark is under appeal, and there are of course other provinces also looking at this, and a trip of the matter to the SCC is easily foreseeable, so Stark might not be the law in the end.
6. Can the application win?
Now the important part: what are the possible outcomes for the section 74 applications presently underway? If the Court decides that they have jurisdiction at all to hear the case (and different provinces have gone different ways on that), there are 3 possible outcomes, but only 2 of which are likely.
1. The Court can decide that the Notice was defective for non-compliance with ss. 71 and 72 of the Firearms Act, and the government will have to do the process all over again with proper notices and proper service, triggering s. 74 rights later. Note that this outcome makes them spend millions of our tax dollars on new notices, but it won’t reverse the revocation. The actual fight will come back to you another day.
2. The Court can follow Stark and decide that the defective notice might have legal consequences, but that they will hear the s. 74 reference hearing “on the merits” and decide if the revocation is legal and proper. Here is the bad news. The fact that the OIC exists, and for so long as it does, means the decision by the Registrar under s. 71 is perfectly justified because the OIC is a “good and sufficient reason” for the revocations, and the revocations should therefore stand.
Remember that the s. 74 reference hearing typically only attacks decision #2 (the revocation) described in the beginning of this article, and not decision #1 (the OIC).
We should point out that if CCFR v Canada wins, the OIC goes away and the Registrar’s justification goes with it. For people that have reference hearings **before** the OIC is set aside, if a judge declares the revocation to have been valid, that’s going to be final. You don’t get to go again after CCFR v Canada wins. You might be able to apply for a new certificate, but the old ones will be gone for you. If a grandfathering regime comes in under s. 12(9), you won’t qualify (that’s for a different article).
If you can delay your “on the merits” reference hearing until **after** CCFR v Canada wins, your reference hearing should also win.
Those people with reference hearings underway now will likely not find this possible, and will have the revocations confirmed as final.
3. That gets to the long-shot that is a possible win at this time, but it’s unlikely. To win your certificates back, you’d need to attack and win on an OIC challenge (decision #1) in Provincial Court, just like the CCFR v Canada case, and use that win as a basis to sequentially then challenge decision #2. This is your only path, and it’s thin (likely impossible), but here’s some information on it:
A s. 74 must go to a Provincial Court Judge (“PCJ”), but a PCJ doesn’t have the constitutional power to strike down legislation as unconstitutional under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 – that requires a superior court judge.
That’s a problem but not a fatal one. A PCJ can find that a law does not conform to the Constitution, and use that finding to permit the PCJ to refuse to apply it in the case at bar. That doesn’t strike the law down, but it does work for the person before the Court on that specific application, and only them (but it would then be a precedent).
The problem is that this reference hearing is not really criminal law so as bring the Charter or the Constitution into it.
Of course there are legal consequences to the revocation, and failing to obey the law on that will have criminal consequences, but those are not the same things and that will likely not be a successful argument - the Court has made the following analogy: the loss of a drivers’ licence is a “civil consequence and distinct from any criminal conviction or criminal penalty.” In other words, we must “recognize the important distinction between Charter rights as they apply in a criminal context and their scope and application in civil and administrative proceedings.” [Alberta (Chief Firearms Officer) v Rolls, 2004 ABQB 582]
You would need to change that law to win, using new arguments to import the Charter into the administrative law part of this issue. I don't see that happening.
There’s not a lot of law on this, but in R v Wyville, 2020 ONCJ 555 at para 39 the Court said: “As a provincial court judge, I do not have the authority or power to review the decision of the Governor in Council to change the law with respect to the classification of firearms.” That’s likely right, and that is why the CCFR is in Federal Court running that challenge as a judicial review (the proper way to do that).
Notably, Wyville decided that there were not 2 decisions, and that the revocation was indeed automatic. The SCC will have to sort out this conflict.
For people who have not filed s. 74 applications, you might want to wait for a CCFR v Canada win, but that triggers a problem with the 30 day rule to apply from the date of service of the notice of the revocation. Of course, the service was defective, and the state will have no means of proving that you were in fact ever served, except where you put in evidence on that.
As always, this is not legal advice but just a discussion of a few thoughts. You need to get actual legal advice for all your specific circumstances.
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
  #720  
Old 01-17-2021, 04:18 PM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Heard a lot of interesting stuff about Murray Smith's testimony as the gov'ts "expert witness" at the OIC injunction hearing, let you decide for yourself on this "expert".

https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/...mith-Part1.pdf
__________________
You should also be a member;
CCFR
CSSA
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.